Comments (14)

will o dwisp wrote on January 2, 2008 1:02 PM:

Can you say "complicit"?

I voted for Kodos wrote on January 2, 2008 1:05 PM:

Obstruction is serious!

C.f. Libby, Scooter. At least it used to be treated seriously, that is. It was recognized that while other crimes might appear more serious, the entire justice system could not function without serious consequences for obstruction. Now it seems to be a day-to-day strategy of government functioning.

Capt Kirk wrote on January 2, 2008 1:32 PM:

The Bush admin has spent nearly seven years schooling the world on basic tactics of evading questions and oversight. Any white collar criminal-or any criminal-on trial in the U.S. would do well to watch the hearings and testimony of Gonzales, Schlozman, and to master the word parsing and trickery of Bush himself, "my first recollection of whether the tapes existed or were destroyed...". The media refers to this as speaking plainly, and of course, it's as clear as, "i wish to announce that it is my intent to resign..." and the argument that OVP is not part of the executive branch. Criminals and lawyers alike now have much in the way of training videos.

ckp wrote on January 2, 2008 1:33 PM:

As you report, the most important aspect of this op-ed is the twice repeated charge of obstruction..of a duly constituted committee.

One can only hope this will be heavily covered by all the msm, which should then lead to a special prosecutor's investigation.

Philip Wright wrote on January 2, 2008 1:45 PM:

ckp,

"One can only hope this will be heavily covered by all the msm, which should then lead to a special prosecutor's investigation."

Tongue in cheek? If there is enough of a vestige of our Constitutional government left we will see a special prosecutor. But that is up in the air. What promises did Lahey get from our new AG?

Here is a previous point I wrote on this issue:
For the past seven years, like so many on this site, I have dreamed of the day when some authority could force accountability from our current administration. My hopes that Congress could provide oversight, supervision and accountability were certainly a little too optimistic.

If you look back at the past thirty to thirty-five years it is easy to see that the only meaningful way to deal with the power of the executive branch, especially this executive branch, is to appoint a special prosecutor. For this administration there was only one situation where we have gotten anywhere close to the bottom of what was going on. (Well, maybe the DOJ scandal was an exception.) Yep, it was the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation. Now perhaps we have been given the impetus we needed to force the appointment of another.

Dennis wrote on January 2, 2008 2:03 PM:

"Kean and Hamilton, for their part, make a point of using the "O" word in their conclusion: As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others."

Meaning who,"...for others"? Unless Mukasey turns out to be a BIG SURPRISE (Is anyone looking for it?), the Justice Department isn't going to investigate anything...it has its own corruptions.

An "investigation" isn't going anywhere. The Republican members of Congress will see to that and they will be aided and abetted by some Democrats.

We have a sorry assed damned Congress. And the aspiring presidential candidates who stand a chance of winning the White House aren't worth voting for.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Dennis wrote on January 2, 2008 2:06 PM:

P.S. As an added thought, just who controls the CIA? For certain it isn't Congress.

You don't have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

Anonymous wrote on January 2, 2008 2:36 PM:

Broad question -- given the apparent CIA obstruction of the 9-11 commission:

A. What interest did the CIA (apparently) have in not fully supporting what the Congress and President stated in writing they wanted;

B. Were the CIA privately complying with direction/orders/guidance which the Congressional leadership privately -- in secret -- were told and agreed?

C. Was it the intent of the President and Congress to pubilcly state that they wanted the 9-11 Commission to do things; but they privately had interests/objectives/agendas that were at corss-purposes with this stated objective?

Maybe the real problem isn't that the 9-11 Commission was obstructed; but the Congress and President publicly said one thing, but privately agreed to something else. We've seen the same in re FISA violations, rendition, prisoner abuse, WMD, illegal warfare, and defense of the Constitution.

Perhaps if the weather is favorable the Salon media-types might dare ask these questions of the current candidates in Iowa: Do they have a plan to end this hypocrisy; or are they going to shed other crocodile tears when the world dares challenge what the MSM and politicial hacks -- I mean, "parties" -- refuse?

JMOHR wrote on January 2, 2008 3:26 PM:

You are blasphemous traitors to our country and to the name of GOD.

We all know that Bush was selected by the hand of GOD to lead this nation at a time of great peril and biblical prophecy. How else could one be elected to the presidency despite having lost the popular vote? We all know that it was divine intervention that swung the election to Bush despite all of those secular polls and voters saying differently.

GOD has set the scene for the end of times apocalypse that will clear the way for his coming. Why else would we have invaded Iraq had it not been for the divine illusion of WMD and cooperation with AQ? The nation was led to believe that which was necessary for our selected leader to prepare the way for prophecy.

Now there are those of you who dare call for any investigation, any examination any questioning of the appointed messenger of GOD. Kneel down and pray for deliverance from you sins. The president and his apostles do not answer to any earthly authority. The have been sanctified as have those who attain great wealth as a symbol of GOD's favor.

Bill in Parker wrote on January 2, 2008 3:59 PM:

JMOHR I'm LMBO at your post. I don't think even G.W. Bush thinks THAT far out to the right.

I love the fact the Bush was elected while losing the popular vote, nationwide. It was a great show of the power of the center vs. the left and right coasts, where the vote went far more heavily for Gore, but the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral college system showed exactly what it was designed to do in that case. Not have our presidential elections decided by a simple majority of national votes, so candidates would have to win each state, not just the most populous ones like California, New York, and now Texas.

Cheers!

Dwight wrote on January 2, 2008 10:45 PM:

Everyone seems to be focusing narrowly on the CIA. I haven't seen any focus on this quote from the article:

"A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department"

This seems to spread the obstruction between Mr. Tenet and the CIA to the White House, DOD and DOJ.

johnnydoughey wrote on January 3, 2008 2:15 AM:

The important thing to note is that when all is said and done, nobody will actually be held accountable... except, of course, "We the People" who will once again feel what its like to be screwed by those folks in Washington...

Johann wrote on January 3, 2008 10:09 AM:

I find it interesting that the thrust of accountability is toward the CIA - an organization which can do nothing unless some PERSON in that organization initiates or prevents an action from occurring.

Until investigators start naming the names of PEOPLE and saying that these PEOPLE did this or that instead of saying that the CIA did this or that, I have no confidence that any investigation will lead anywhere or that any one or more PERSONS will be held responsible or accountable for anything.

Dee Illuminati wrote on January 3, 2008 10:26 AM:

I look at this as a 'theme based' or 'narrative' based issue, which is political in nature and exemplified in operational acts.

When you look at the Interrogation Log of al-Qahtani, you see repeated references to the use of 'themes.' When you look at the interrogation of the Salem witchcraft trials:

....

Mary Sibley ordered Tituba and her husband, John Indian, to bake a "witch cake" in order to help the girls name their tormentors. A witch cake is composed of rye meal mixed with urine from the afflicted. It is then feed to a dog. The person(s) are considered bewitched if the dog displays similar symptoms as the afflicted. The girls were at first hesitant to speak, but Betty eventually spoke and named Tituba. The other girls soon spoke and named Sarah Osborne and Sarah Good.

....

We now know that one of the 'themes' of interrogation was: 'A witch cake is composed of rye meal mixed with urine from the afflicted. It is then feed to a dog. The person(s) are considered bewitched if the dog displays similar symptoms as the afflicted.'

...

Now we know that operationaly that stones were put on the chest of people who met the 'theme' above, or that they were subjected to waterboarding, or dunking...

.....

But a fact based accounting of the events was eventually found that discredited the initial 'theme.'

.....

The 911 commission was formed to examine factually the circumstances that surrounded the 911 events, but at the same time we know that the OSI (office of special intelligence) and the OSP (office of special plans) was creating the theme and narrative of WMD in Iraq and that OBL and al-Qaida or al-Qa'ida or al-Qa'idah was responsible for 911 and that 'nobody could have stopped the event' and that 'there was no warning.'

Well then the narative shifted, COLEEN ROWLEY testified that there was advanced warning, and then we found that the President's Daily Brief (PDB) for August 6, 2001 contained similar warnings.

.....

Staying on message, the theme was continued

..........

The theme of the interrogations and the facts in the 911 investigations didn't coincide, the tapes initially wanted for the purpose of justifying the act, ergo.. here is a dog eating a witches cake.. was suddenly prosecutor evidence that had turned sour, in fact, an embarrasment.

..........

It was developing into a circumstance where the initial themes were not substantiated by facts.

...........

Never allow facts to stand in the way of your convictions!

..............

If only enough Iraqi's can be tortured, surely we will find some WMD somewhere!

................

And then you have the circumstances well documented where people will perform acts, mob activity or groupthink, irrespective of the results, documented in many social analysis... the best overall analysis being the 'true believer' by eric hoffer where the entire life-cycle of these movements is analyzed and documented into their life-cycle component.

................

The scapegoating of CIA is focusing on the act of the 'rocks on the chest' of a witch, and ignores the introductory evidence of a 'witches cake.'

.............

The scapegoating of CIA is to have some intelligence segments developing a theme, OSI-OSP and them blaming the CIA for a 'failure' when facts arose that undermined the theme....

it is as if, when the witches cake was found to be unsatisfactory information CIA was blamed for baking a bad cake, or suggesting that the cake had not been baked!

....

This goes to the Powell and CIA slamdunk episode and curveball....

....

But where is the operational act divorced from the 'themes' in the interrogation one asks????

.....

yes folks, these interrogations were performed with an agenda

....

and the tapes were created and destroyed for that precise purpose.